P. Ravichandran v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd

For Petitioner: Mr.K. PremkumarFor Respondents:Mr.V.SelvanayagamO R D E RPrayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the secondrespondent dated 25.3.2003 confirmed by the first respondent by orderdated 29.12.2004 and to direct the respondents to provide alternateemployment to the petitioner by protecting his pay and other serviceconditions in the post of Electrician and if no equal post isavailable, create a supernumerary post with pay and other benefits from30.11.2000 to 21.2.2001 including travelling allowance to attendMedical Board at Madurai and at Chennai, within the time fixed by thisCourt.2.The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are asfollows:(a)Petitioner has studied upto S.S.L.C. and he is holdingElectrical 'B' grade certificate. He was appointed as an Electricianon 28.3.1991 in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, aCorporation registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which is aGovernment of Tamil Nadu Undertaking. Now the petitioner is working asElectrician at the Modern Rice Mill, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District.(b)On 31.7.1999, petitioner was working as Electrician at theModern Rice Mill, Polur, in the third shift at about 11.45 p.m., andwhen he was attending to an electrical fault, he sustained injuries dueto electric shock on his left hand fingers and the petitioner's facegot blackened. Immediately, the petitioner was admitted in theChristian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, and he took treatmentfor 15 days.(c)Petitioner rejoined duty on 18.8.1999 and by proceeding dated12.10.1999, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to appear beforethe Medical Board for medical examination, pursuant to which thepetitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 26.10.1999. Aftermedical examination, the Medical Board, by its proceeding dated26.10.1999, certified that the petitioner will not be able to performhis duties as before as activities of his left hand fingers lost itsgrip and a recommendation was made to provide alternate employment tothe petitioner.(d)The 4th respondent, on 4.11.1991 sent a communication to theSenior General Manager (Engineering) at Head Office, Chennai, forfurther course of action. On 25.1.2000, the 4th respondent directedthe Assistant Manager (Engineering), Modern Rice Mill, Polur, toprovide light work to the petitioner. However, the same was notgiven.(e)On 9.8.2000, the third respondent offered conversion of dutyto the petitioner from the post of Electrician to the post of JuniorAssistant and the petitioner was directed to give his acceptance letteron or before 18.8.2000, and the petitioner also gave his consent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ letter on 14.8.2000. The third respondent by his proceeding dated28.11.2000 relieved the petitioner from the post of Electrician ofModern Rice Mill, Polur, and the petitioner was directed to reportbefore the General Manager (Administration), Head Office, Chennai, atonce. The petitioner in compliance with the orders of the thirdrespondent, on 29.11.2000 appeared before the second respondent atChennai. However, on 14.12.2000, the second respondent by his orderstated that there is no provision in the existing Tamil Nadu Civilsupplies Corporation Limited Service Rules, for posting of employeefrom Modern Rice Mill (technical side to administrative side).(f)Petitioner submitted repeated representations, pursuant towhich the first respondent instructed the second respondent to getfresh medical opinion from the panel of members of Medical Board andassess the present disability. On 24.1.2001, petitioner appearedbefore the Medical Board and on assessment, the Medical Board opinedthat the petitioner's left hand grip is poor and he cannot performfiner activities and the percentage of disability was assessed as 10%,which is partial and permanent one and based on the said medicalopinion it was recommended for providing alternate job, other thanElectrician work.(g)However, contrary to the said Medical Board opinion, thesecond respondent, by his proceeding dated 21.2.2001, directed thepetitioner to work as Electrician in Modern Rice Mill, Polur. Again,petitioner submitted representation and on 28.6.2001, the thirdrespondent referred the petitioner to Meenakshi Mission Hospital,Research Centre, Madurai, for medical check up and on 25.9.2001,petitioner appeared before the Orthopaedic Surgeon in the said hospitaland a certificate was issued in the same line as before with regard tothe petitioner's disability.(h)On 11.7.2002, the third respondent rejected the petitioner'srequest for sanction of pay and allowances for the period from29.11.2000 to 22.2.2001, the period in which the petitioner was keptout of employment and treated the said period as leave without pay andallowances, apart from denying the medical expenses and travelling andother expenses for visiting Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. On25.3.2003, second respondent again rejected petitioner's request forproviding alternate employment by stating that there is no provision inthe Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees ServiceRegulations, 1989.(i)Petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on10.12.2004, which was also rejected on 29.12.2004. On 23.3.2005, thefourth respondent again directed the petitioner to appear before theMedical Board at the Government General Hospital, Chennai-3 for medicalexamination and the petitioner also appeared before the said hospitalon 1.5.2005 and the said medical report was not furnished to thepetitioner in spite of petitioner's specific request. Thereafter,petitioner is continuously submitting representations to providealternate employment and other service benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (j)The denial of alternate employment is challenged in this writpetition on the ground that respondents are bound to give alternate jobas provided under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995, as the respondent Corporation has not obtained any exemption ofSection 47 of the Act. Petitioner also filed application for paymentof compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, inW.C.No.136 of 2001 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Tiruvannamalai, who in turn ordered a sum of Rs.24,714/- ascompensation by order dated 24.4.2007.3.The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it isstated that the disability assessed by the Regional Medical Board,Government General Hospital by certificate, dated 15.7.2005 was only10% and that a sum of Rs.24,714/- was ordered under the provisions ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the said amount was alsopaid. The contention raised in the counter affidavit is that theservices of the petitioner are covered by the Modern Rice Mill StandingOrders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,1946, whereunder there is no provision for transfer of service fromModern Rice Mill to Administrative side. Hence the petitioner'srequest for conversion to the post of Junior Assistant from Electricianwas rejected. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that sincethe disability in two fingers are assessed only as 10%, petitioner canperform his duty as Electrician in the Modern Rice Mill and thereforethere is no need to give alternate employment to the petitioner.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thefour Medical Reports clearly state that the petitioner is unable to doElectrician work due to loss of grip in his left hand and thedisability having been sustained during the course of the employmentand the respondent Corporation being a fully Government ownedCorporation, it is bound to comply with the statutory requirement ofoffering alternate employment to the petitioner under the provisions ofthe Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection ofRights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996).5.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other handsubmitted that the petitioner is able to discharge the duty ofElectrician as the disability is on the lower side and alternateemployment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly whenthere is no provision under the Standing Orders to transfer an employeefrom the technical side to administrative side.6.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for therespondents.7.It is not in dispute that the petitioner sustained electricalburns in his left hand fingers while he was attending to an electrical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fault on 31.7.1999 at 11.45 p.m. It is also not in dispute that thepetitioner was admitted in the Christian Medical College and Hospital,Vellore, and took treatment for about 15 days. The Medical Board,Tiruvannamalai District, examined the petitioner and a report wassubmitted to the Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil SuppliesCorporation Limited on 26.10.1999, which reads as follows:"MEDICAL AND RURAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENTSFromToDr.Jagaraj, MBBS, DCH,The Regional Manager,Joint Director of Health Services,Tamil Nadu CivilSuppliesTiruvannamalai District,Corporation Ltd.,Tiruvannamalai.SIDCO Complex,Vengikkal,Tiruvannamalai- 606 604.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ref.No.8783/P&D/99, dt.26.10.1999Sir,Sub:Medical Board - Tiruvannamalai District - MedicalExamination - Thiru P.Ravichandran, Electrician,Modern Rice Mill - Polur - Report forwarded -regarding.Ref:1. Your office ref.No.E2/4207/99, dt.12.10.992. This office ref.8783/HB/99, dt.22.10.99----With reference to above, Thiru P.Ravichandran,Electrician, Modern Rice Mill, Polur, has appeared beforeMedical Board for Medical Examination on 25.10.99.MEDICAL BOARD OFFERS OPINION AS FOLLOWS:-Thiru P. Ravichandran has post electrical burns contractureof Metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal joints of all thefingers of left hand. He is ot able to perform fineractivities with his left hand and not able to do hard workbecause of less hand grip. HENCE HE MAY BE CONSIDERED FORALTERNATE JOB.Sd/- xxx 26.10.99Joint Director of Health Services,Chairman Medical Board, Government Headquarters Hospital,Tiruvannamalai." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Based on the said Medical Report, the Regional Manager sent acommunication to the Senior General Manager (Engineering),T.N.C.S.C.Ltd., Head Office, Chennai, on 4.11.99 and the contents ofthe said communication reads as follows."Thiru P.Ravichandran, Electrician, Modern RiceMill, Polur met with an accident while attending hisduty at Modern Rice Mill, Polur on 31.7.99 during nighttime (3rd shift at 11.45 P.M). His left hand fingersand face got blackened.He took treatment at C.M.C.Vellore and discharged.In his letter date 09.10.99, the electrician hasrequested that he may be permitted to attend some otherjob in the office as his fingers in the left hand areinaction.Then his case was referred to District MedicalBoard to examine the affected area of the left handsought their opinion.In the letter dated 29.10.99, the Joint Director ofHealth Services, Tiruvannamalai has reported that theindividual could not attend the hand work because ofless hand grip.In the light of the above facts, we solicitinstructions to utilise the services of the individualat some other place in the office. We enclose the X-rayphoto copy of the affected areas of the individual forperusal."The head office also ordered the Regional Manager to offer light dutyto the petitioner and sent a report by proceeding dated 25.1.2000.However, the Chairman and Managing Director, TNCSC Limited, byproceeding dated 14.12.2000, rejected the proposals for givingalternate employment to the petitioner as Junior Assistant from thepost of Electrician by stating that there is no provision in theexisting service rules for posting of an employee from the technicalside to the administrative side.8.Petitioner's disability was again verified by the MedicalBoard, Tiruvannamalai District on 24.1.2001, the contents of whichreads as follows:"With reference to above letters cited ThiruP.Ravichandran, Electrician, Modern Rice Mill, Polur,has appeared before Medical Board for MedicalExamination, on 24.01.2001.Medical Board Officers opinion as follows:-Thiru P.Ravichandran has post Electrical burnscontracture of left hand Mata Carpophalangeal andinterphalangeal joints of all fingers. His hand grip ispoor and cannot perform finer activities. Percentage of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ disability is 10% (Ten) which is partial and permanent.Hence he may be considered for alternate jobs other thanElectrician work." The Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology of Meenakshi MissionHospital and Reserch Centre, Madurai, also issued a certificate on25.9.2001 as follows:"This is to certify that Mr.RAVICHANDRAN, Aged 33years, Male, has attended Orthopaedics O.P.D. on25.9.2001, vide Hospital No:179884. He is a case ofPOST-TRAUMATIC STIFFNESS LEFT WRIST/FINGER. He has apartial and permanent disability of 10% (TENPERCENTAGE)."9.In spite of assessment of disability and medical opiniongiven stating that the petitioner will not be in a position to performthe Electrician duty as before due to loss of grip in left handfingers, admittedly the petitioner was not given alternate employment,even though it was suggested to offer him Junior Assistant post bystating that there is no provision in the service rules to transfer anemployee from the technical side to administrative side.10.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited isadmittedly a Government owned Corporation, registered under theCompanies Act, 1956. Section 2(k) of the Persons with Disabilities(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995, section 2(k) defines the term 'establishment' as a Corporationestablished by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or anauthority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or alocal authority or a Government Company as defined under Section 617 ofthe Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes Departments of aGovernment. Section 47 of the Act clearly states that noestablishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank an employee, whoacquires disability during his service. Section 47 reads as follows:Sec.47. Non-Discrimination of Governmentemployment.- (1) No establishment shall dispensewith, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires adisability during his service:Provided that, if an employee, after acquiringdisability is not suitable for the post he washolding, could be shifted to some other post with thesame pay scale and service benefits.Provided further that if it is not possible toadjust the employee against any post, he may be kepton a supernumerary post until a suitable post is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ available or he attains the age of superannuation,whichever is earlier.(2)No promotion shall be denied to a personmerely on the ground of his disability:Provided that the appropriate Government may,having regard to the type of work carried on in anyestablishment, by notification and subject to suchconditions, if any, as may be specified in suchnotification, exempt any establishment from theprovisions of this section.”The disability sustained by the petitioner is also coming within themeaning of Section 2(o) of the Act, which reads as follows:"Section 2(o) "locomotor disability" meansdisability of the bones, joints or muscles leadingto substantial restriction of the movement of thelimbs or any form of cerebral palsy."11.Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation has notobtained any exemption for non-application of the provisions of Section47 of the Act, till date. Therefore, Section 47 governs the respondentCorporation also. The three medical certificates referred above clearlydemonstrate petitioner's disability and his inability to performElectrician Duty as before, due to the loss of grip in his left handfingers. The only objection as to whether under the service rulesthere is any provision for accommodating the petitioner in theadministrative side, who is now in the technical side side alone has tobe considered as sustainable in the light of the above statutoryprovisions and various decisions of the Supreme Court and of thisCourt.12.The service rules will not prevail over Act 1 of 1996.Therefore, the said reason given by the respondents to deny alternateemployment to the petitioner cannot be sustained.(a)A person acquiring disability is entitled to get protectionunder section 47 of the Act was considered by the Supreme Court in thedecision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524 (Kunal Singh v. Union of India).Paragraph 9 of the decision reads as follows:"9. ........An employee, who acquires disabilityduring his service, is sought to be protected underSection 47 of the Act specifically. Such employee,acquiring disability, if not protected, would not onlysuffer himself, but possibly all those who depend onhim would also suffer. The very frame and contents ofSection 47 clearly indicate its mandatory nature. Thevery opening part of Section reads "no establishment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee whoacquires a disability during his service". The Sectionfurther provides that if an employee after acquiringdisability is not suitable for the post he was holding,could be shifted to some other post with the same payscale and service benefits; if it is not possible toadjust the employee against any post he will be kept ona supernumerary post until a suitable post is availableor he attains the age of superannuation, whichever isearlier. Added to this, no promotion shall be deniedto a person merely on the ground of his disability asis evident from sub-section (2) of Section 47. Section47 contains a clear directive that the employer shallnot dispense with or reduce in rank an employee whoacquires a disability during the service. "(b)A question arose before this Court as to whether theTransport Corporations are bound to provide alternate employment to itsemployees, who sustain disability during the course of the employment.A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2007 (5) MLJ1 (Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v.B.Gnanasekaran) considered the benevolent provisions contained in thethe Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opprotunities, Protection ofRights and full Participation) Act, 1995, the interpretation given bythe Supreme Court in the above referred case and whether the disabilityshould be to an extent of 40% for getting alternate employment andwhether awarding compensation under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalwill be a bar for seeking alternate employment, were considered. TheDivision Bench in paragraph 17 held as follows with regard to thepercentage of disability, which reads as follows:"17.In the instant case, the respondentworkman became unfit for the duty of the driver ashe lost knee movement and there is no possibilityof regaining his normal movement. It is notdisputed before us that the workman is sufferingfrom locomotor disability within the meaning ofSection 2(o) of the Disabilities Act. In view ofthe Supreme Court's decision in Kunal Singh v.Union of India and Another (supra) it is clear thatthe acquisition of disability is not the same as aperson with disability and it was not necessary forthe workman to establish that he suffer more than40% disability. In our considered opinion thedecision of the Division Bench in General Manager,Tamil Nadu State Transport corporation v. A.Sengaan(supra) does not lay down the correct law." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The eligibility to receive the benefits, after receipt ofcompensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was alsoconsidered by the Division Bench. In paragraph 13 the Division Benchheld as follows:"13.In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Villupuram Division-I) Limited v. R.Jayakumar(Writ Appeal No.610 of 2007) decided on 13.4.2007,a Division Bench expressly rejected the argumentthat since the workman has been awardedcompensation under the Motor Vehicles Act in aclaim petition filed by him before the MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal, including compensationtowards loss of earning, he is not entitled to thebenefit of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act. Itwas held that Section 47 of the Act casts amandatory duty on the part of the employer toprovide an alternative employment to an employeewho has suffered disability during the course ofhis employment, and the fact that such an employeehas received some compensation under the MotorVehicles Act is no ground to deny him thealternative employment, to which he is otherwiseentitled under the Disabilities Act. It was heldthat if it is the case of the Transport Corporationthat the compensation awarded towards loss ofearning is on the higher side, the Corporation isfree to agitate this point in the appeal filedagainst the award of compensation."The contention as to whether the service rules will prevail over theAct was also answered in paragraph 12, wherein it is held that even ifthere is other rules, if the Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995is more beneficial to the persons concerned, the same alone can prevailand it is the mandatory duty and statutory obligation on the employerto protect the employee, acquiring disability during service.13.Further, forcing the petitioner to do Electrician work evenafter his sustaining disability, is to be treated as violation of humanrights as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The saidview was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the decisionreported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1669 (G.Muthu v. Management of T.N.StateTransport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., wherein the very same Act 1 of1996 came up for consideration. In paragraphs 22 and 26, the DivisionBench held thus,"22.Welfare legislations are meant to ensurebenefits to the needy. They should be interpretedin such a way so that the purpose of thelegislation is allowed to be achieved. Evenassuming that there is any ambiguity in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisions of the Act, in view of the objectunderlying the Act, it requires a reasonableinterpretation of Section 2(i) of the said Act soas to make it applicable to the case on hand. Thelegislative purpose must be noted and the statutemust be read as a whole.23...........24...........25...........26.After analysing the entire provisions ofthe Act and also various decisions cited above, wefeel that the Courts cannot shut its eyes if aperson knocks at its door claiming relief under theAct. In a welfare State like India, benefits ofbenevolent legislation cannot be denied on theground of mere hyper-technicalities. When the lawmakers have conferred certain privileges on a classof persons, like in this case to a disabled person,the duty is cast upon the judiciary to oversee thatthe authorities or the persons to whom such a poweris conferred, enforce the same in letter and spiritfor which such enactment has been made. In thepresent case on hand, the appellant has beendischarged on the ground of 'colour blindness'without providing alternative job as per Section 47of the Act, which is unjustified and unreasonable.Hence, the order of the respondent dated 26.3.2002discharging the appellant on medical grounds has noleg to stand. The appellant is entitled to theprotection under Section 47 of the Act. He shouldhave been given a suitable alternative employmentwith pay protection, instead of discharging himfrom service on the ground of 'colour blindness'.Viewed from any angle, the order of the learnedsingle Judge dismissing the writ petition on themere ground of laches without considering the claimof the appellant on merits is liable to be setaside."The said Judgment has become final, as SLP filed against the saiddecision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Similar view was takenin the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2007 II LLJ407 (State v. K.Mohammed Mustafa); (2006) 1 MLJ 452 (P.Thangamarimuthuv. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai) (D.Murugesan. J);and in the decision of mine reported in 2007 II LLJ 300 (K.Selvaraj v.State Express Transport Corporation).14.How the officers should change their mind set and extend thebenefit to the disabled persons as per Section 47 of the Act 1 of 1996was considered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2008 by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judgment dated 4.1.2008 and in the penultimate paragraph, the SupremeCourt held thus,"We understand that the concerned officerswere acting in what they believed to be the bestinterests of the Board. Still under the old mind-set it would appear to them just not right that theBoard should spend good money on someone who was nolonger of any use. But they were quite wrong, seenfrom any angle. From the narrow point of view theofficers were duty bound to follow the law and itwas not open to them to allow their bias to defeatthe lawful rights of the disabled employee. Fromthe larger point of view the officers failed torealise that the disabled too are equal citizens ofthe country and have as much share in its resourcesas any other citizen. The denial of their rightswould not only be unjust and unfair to them andtheir families but would create larger and graverproblems for the society at large. What the lawpermits to them is no charity or largess but theirright as equal citizens of the country." 15.In the light of the above settled legal position, therespondents are not justified in contending that their service rules donot provide transfer/posting of an employee from the technical side tothe administrative side.16.Insofar as the contention of the respondent that thepetitioner is discharging his duty as Electrician even now, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted that he is doing the said workswith the help of others and due to his partial disablement he isentitled to get lighter duty with pay protection and all other benefitsas contemplated under section 47 of the Act. Hence, the saidsubmission of the respondents is also bound to be rejected.17.In the light of my above findings, I pass the followingorders:(i)The impugned orders are set aside.(ii)The writ petition is allowed in part with a direction to therespondents to provide alternate employment to the petitioner, equal tothe cadre of Electrician in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationLimited, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copyof this order.(iii)For the period for which the petitioner was kept onleave and he was not given alternate employment, the respondents aredirected to pay salary to the petitioner within a period of four weeksfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv)It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to getpromotional opportunity and other benefits as per section 47 of theDisabilities Act.(v)Since the petitioner is given all the benefits under Section47 of Act 1 of 1996, the prayer seeking travelling allowance to attendMedical Board at Madurai and Chennai are rejected.(v)As the petitioner was repeatedly directed to undergo medicalexamination before four Medical Boards and in spite of issuance ofdisability certificates by all the Medical Boards, the respondents havenot provided alternate employment to the petitioner, which thepetitioner is eligible as statutory right under section 47 of the Act 11996, and the respondents having forced the petitioner to approach thisCourt for getting the relief, the respondents are bound to pay cost tothe petitioner. The cost is quantified as Rs.5,000/- and the same isdirected to be paid within a period of four weeks from today. Postthis matter on 3.3.2008 for reporting compliance regarding payment ofcosts.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvrTo1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, T.N.Civil Supplies CorporationLtd.,No.10, Thambusamy Road,Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.2.The General Manager (Administration),Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,Head Office, No.10, Thambusamy Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.3. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies CorporationLtd.,Sidco Complex, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai District - 606 604. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,Sidco Complex, Vengikkal, Thiruvannamalai District - 606 604.+1cc to Mr.K.Premkumar, Advocate Sr 3804KG (CO)km/4.2.W.P.No.27964 of 2007 & connected MP.